Feigenbaum

Ishihara - Far right?

Is there something proving he's NOT far right? As far as things go, he is extremist, nationalist, fits all the description of "far right".
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 18:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you ask me to disprove that. Those who claim it have to prove it. But I wonder if it is anything to be proved. It is rather appropriate to clarify its attribution (i.e. "X claims that he is far-right") though it is still questionable whether it is worth nothing in Wikipedia. Feigenbaum 06:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, the man fits all the typical descriptors of a far right person. With the beliefs, credentials and history he has, what makes him NOT far right?
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 07:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't care what you personally think. All you have to do is to prove your claim so that everyone agrees, or to withdraw it. Feigenbaum 07:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your personally soapbox, so the hurtful truth is, nobody cares what YOU think. Back up your edits with substance, reason and unbiasedness.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 07:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you are looking in a mirror. Feigenbaum 07:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Childish insults do not work.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 08:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Don't project yourself on me. I've already said what I have to say in the first comment. Feigenbaum 05:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

211.169.83.82

I noticed you reverted all edits done by this user. Would you like to explain why? Having a username does not make you better than someone who does not, and your edit history, which is composed almost entirely of reverts, is worrying. You have not provided any reason for your reverts, which is considered good manners and etiquette. Please address this issue, thanks.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 06:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

It was clear that the anonymous user vandalized, I thought. If you disagree, I will put edit summaries. Feigenbaum 06:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No he did not. All he did was add that various politicians and parties were far right. This is NOT vandalism, it's POV at worst. Next time please discuss before reverting, especially mass reverting a particular editor's contribs. That can be seen as stalking, and/or having an agenda. Thanks.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 07:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you should ask the anonymous user, not me, to discuss first. Feigenbaum 07:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As far as things go all his edits were perfectly legit, perhaps POV, but legit nevertheless. You on the other hand mass reverted all his contribs without discussion, or providing a reason.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 07:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No. The one who made suspicious (to say the least) edits without discussion is him/her. Feigenbaum 07:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It's only your personal opinion that his/her edits are suspicious. I treat his/her edits just like any other, but your stalking is highly discouraged.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 08:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. You have too high expectations for me. His/her contributions were not significant and I don't spend so much time accordingly. This case, it is him/her who is expected to start discussion. Feigenbaum 05:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot meet such expectations of basic etiquette, then think twice before editing. Your "contributions" were even less significant. When you disagree with someone's work, start a discussion first, or at least drop a note on the talkpage why you did so. If it's a series of articles, make a full note somewhere and provide a link to that note on other articles. He/she had no need to start a discussion as his/her edits were not a point of contention until you came along and without explanation reverted all his/her edits.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 06:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Againm if his/her contributions had been significant, I wouldn't have just revert. In fact, I think I'm relatively courteous here in Wikipedia. Feigenbaum 06:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

His/her contributions are not insignificant just because you think they are not. They're every bit as significant than your own. Mass reverts without any explanation is not courteous behaviour. At least, most people would not consider it courteous.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 06:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, I don't like to repeat the same thing. The talk with you is unproductive. Untill when do you continue? Feigenbaum 07:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've done my best to impress upon you common courtesy and etiquette. I failed.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 09:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Ishihara

rv - sorry, I assumed you checked talk when editing an article

Sorry, I assumed you could read the plain English of an edit summary. My mistake. And did you bother to read what you reverted, or was that too difficult, too? --Calton | Talk 11:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)